I might be incorrect but I assume the phrase “Stay Wild” isn’t trademarked by Coquette but is a phrase associated with her persona and work by her readers. As Coquette has gone after individuals who have used her content before for some sort of personal gain, for example, a teenager in 2011 used questions submitted to Dear Coquette and wrote their own responses on a long-since defunct Formspring page and has since “fell off the face of the Internet,” to quote Coquette after she was called-out for plagiarism. A second, more obvious example, of personal and financial gain is when sex and relationship coach Jessica Bari used several submissions and responses from Dear Coquette on her also now-defunct website Rationalize Anything in 2013 and was also called-out for plagiarism.

If Urban Outfitters had infringed upon Coquette’s copyright by creating derivative works, such as the above Neon Mfg. Stay Wild Sign, one would guess that if Coquette had a legal leg to stand on, she could, and possibly is, pursuing litigation with Urban Outfitters to resolve any allegations of plagiarism. One solution would be a transfer of copyright ownership for a limited time to Urban Outfitters for a specific monetary sum. However, the US government states that, “Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as … catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions.” More can be read here. Also, opting to pursue litigation could result in Coquette’s identity being revealed in court records and rather than sacrifice her anonymity for potential monetary gain, she’s opting to give Urban Outfitters some negative PR by implying their alleged copyright infringement of her works.